VB versus VB.NET

Visual Basic is a proprietary language. Microsoft own it and they can do what they like with it. They have chosen to discontinue support for VB6, thus VB6 is an old technology. There are certainly still plenty of companies and developers using VB6, but that number is bound to dwindle over time. If you started a business now and needed software development, would you choose an unsupported technology? That would be a very unsound business decision and thus learning VB6 is an unsound long-term professional decision for any new developers. Learn VB6 if you want to or have a specific reason to, like you need to for a specific job or project, but VB.NET IS the future of VB purely and simply because Microsoft have decided that it is. Personally, I like VB.NET and I didn't like VB6 when I played with it for a brief period. Your preference for one over the other is almost immaterial though. You may have a love of steam trains, but would you become a steam train repair man if you were looking for a job? I'm guessing probably not, although there are steam trains out there that would need repairing. There are still COBOL programs and programmers out there but I wouldn't recommend it as a career path for any new developer. The simple fact is that it doesn't matter how good or bad anything is, there will always be people who will love it and those who hate it. Look at Britney Spears for goodness sake! Suffice it to say that VB6 and VB.NET have similarites and differences and each has its pros and cons, but if you're a new developer starting out and you want to get into a career in VB, the sound decision in the long term would be to choose VB.NET. Again, I'm sure that there are those whose opinions would differ, but logic would dictate that the supported technology will win out over the unsupported one.

Now why did you have to bring Britney into this :D

What's this garbage about decompiling code.. have you ever heard of a court case?

I have to admit that I don't know all the ins and outs of decompilation and disassembly, but Microsoft themselves are intending to port their apps and OS either wholly or partly to .NET, so I'm guessing that it's quite possible to secure your code. It may be that you have to be Microsoft to afford the tech to do it, but that's another story. :)

I know this is an old thread but I am the opposite of what is being discussed here. I am actually someone that started on VB.NET and moved to VB6.

The reason I moved from VB.NET to VB6 as a beginner was VB.NET was one royal pain in the butt to me. Seems I needed 20 lines of code to do the same thing in VB6 with 5. Also, everything I developed for my friends, they had to download the .net framework and then find it still needed an update.

When I tried VB6 it was like a match made in heaven! No I am not a programming god or a very experienced programmer, self taught and help from good people like what is on this board. BUT my choice is VB6. I just wish MS or some other company could continue the evolution of it instead of killing it.

A 06 Corvette is not a 53 Corvette but I can still drive them both, I want to do the same with VB ;)

Now I am not saying which one is best which one is OOP none of that, I will leave that to the more experienced in this community.

But, I think there is more out there like me, that finds/found VB6 to be a better fit for them then .NET is.

Please dont KILL VB6.

I would really like to see the 20 lines of code in .NET that converted into 5 lines of code in VB6...

chances are the code in .NET is not optimized....

so you like not having to download the framework? Yeah I have to admit, it is a bigger runtime that you have to make sure your users have versus VB6.. but VB6 runtimes are NOT installed on everysystem either... MS started including runtimes in windows 2000 and up for VB6, but only new versions are coming with the most up to date set of the runtimes service pack.

Also, lets say you want to add some common dialog controls, maybe a listview, or maybe an open file dialog.. these are now all files you need to add to your setup project and distribute with your app, or else it wont run.. TONS of the controls that are commonly used in almost ALL application are included right in the runtime.. nothing to worry about...

Then there is DLL hell... so you pack up your program, and give it to your friend cause you tell him its really cool, and it installs, and works fine, and then he goes to run one of his other programs.. but it doesn't run... what happened??? your program installed some OCX or DLL into the system32 directory, overwriting the existing file that was a different version, and broke compatibility with the OTHER programs that used that DLL or OCX... this was always a cause for endless problems and nightmares with distributing software.

.NET uses a GAC (Global Assembly Cache) which can store MULTIPLE versions of the same file, so the program gets what version it was written to run with..

maybe when you are FIRST FIRST starting out.. yes I can see how VB6 can be LESS INTIMIDATING.. but by no means would I call it easier...

anything super basic is just as easy in .NET (if not easier) than it is in VB6

just wait until you have to open text files in VB6 and have to use file handles and use lineinputs and crap that has been around since QBASIC...

its NOT easier... but I agree with jmcilhinney "there will always be people who will love it and those who hate it"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleinma

I had to open up VB6 to work on an older project last week and it was painful to work in the VB6 IDE writing VB6 code...

I agree with Pino that the people who are clinging to VB6 just don't want to have to deal with the change of .NET, but once you actually get into it, and see all the powerful new features you can use, you will never want to use VB6 again.

---

This was my experience also. I loved VB6, but I hate working in that environment with that language now.

Quote:

---

To say that it IS a new language though, implies that it was built as new from the ground up. C# IS a new language that WAS built from the ground up (although I doubt many would say that its syntax is completely different to C/C++) but I don't know whether that is the case with VB.NET or not. Can anyone provide definitive evidence either way? I've looked and I can't find it written anywhere that it was created from scratch, but I've also not seen anything to say definitively that it was a reworking of existing VB.

---

I can speak to this just a bit, since my brother-in-law was the head of the MS VB7 dev team, and we had a discussion about this topic over Christmas. The intent of VB7 was to be fully backward-coimpatible with VB6, but stay within the whole .NET managed code paradigm. Eventually, they realized that this was not going to be possible, and if they really would have to choose. There was talk of a VB6.5, but marketeering decided that MS should "put all its wood behind one arrow." (which is a totally screwed metaphor, since the wood IS the arrow).

Therefore, VB.Net was not entirely built from the ground up, since backward compatibility was one of the original specs, but the new paradigm overruled the compatibility when the two came into conflict, so .Net ended up 'roughly' built from scratch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleinma

I would really like to see the 20 lines of code in .NET that converted into 5 lines of code in VB6...

chances are the code in .NET is not optimized....

so you like not having to download the framework? Yeah I have to admit, it is a bigger runtime that you have to make sure your users have versus VB6.. but VB6 runtimes are NOT installed on everysystem either... MS started including runtimes in windows 2000 and up for VB6, but only new versions are coming with the most up to date set of the runtimes service pack.

Also, lets say you want to add some common dialog controls, maybe a listview, or maybe an open file dialog.. these are now all files you need to add to your setup project and distribute with your app, or else it wont run.. TONS of the controls that are commonly used in almost ALL application are included right in the runtime.. nothing to worry about...

Then there is DLL hell... so you pack up your program, and give it to your friend cause you tell him its really cool, and it installs, and works fine, and then he goes to run one of his other programs.. but it doesn't run... what happened??? your program installed some OCX or DLL into the system32 directory, overwriting the existing file that was a different version, and broke compatibility with the OTHER programs that used that DLL or OCX... this was always a cause for endless problems and nightmares with distributing software.

.NET uses a GAC (Global Assembly Cache) which can store MULTIPLE versions of the same file, so the program gets what version it was written to run with..

maybe when you are FIRST FIRST starting out.. yes I can see how VB6 can be LESS INTIMIDATING.. but by no means would I call it easier...

anything super basic is just as easy in .NET (if not easier) than it is in VB6

just wait until you have to open text files in VB6 and have to use file handles and use lineinputs and crap that has been around since QBASIC...

its NOT easier... but I agree with jmcilhinney "there will always be people who will love it and those who hate it"...

---

Yeah, how about ON ERROR, too. Exception handling is totally different, but far more flexible.

to kmcgrath: In spite of what VB.NET lovers may tell you about the mistake you would make using a dead language like VB6, I am firmly convinced that, from a commercial point of view, a COM based piece of software is much better than a .NET based one since it's lighter, compiled in machine language and can run without the framework.

Don't be taken in by sweet talks about how powerful the .NET framework is. I am much more scared by the .NET Framework hell than the DLL hell. Remember that the framework is going to be updated on a regular basis and backwards compatibility is not something you can take for granted.

The truth is, MS were afraid of Java because it was a cross-platform language that could exist without Windows, so they decided to come up with a similar byte-code tool. .NET is economically good for MS, not for software developers. If you want to produce commercial software, byte-code is not a winning choice. You will be obliged to spend a lot of money to buy a good obfuscator to protect your product and, more painfully, you will have to provide your customers with a 23MB virtual machine that will slow down the performance of the operating system.

If your software can be produced in VB6, it is crazy to develop it using VB.NET.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleinma

I would really like to see the 20 lines of code in .NET that converted into 5 lines of code in VB6...

chances are the code in .NET is not optimized....

---

I am sure it wasnt, using Halverson Step by Step book. Parsing/Writting Text files is what I started out programming in both languages.

Quote:

---

maybe when you are FIRST FIRST starting out.. yes I can see how VB6 can be LESS INTIMIDATING.. but by no means would I call it easier...

anything super basic is just as easy in .NET (if not easier) than it is in VB6

just wait until you have to open text files in VB6 and have to use file handles and use lineinputs and crap that has been around since QBASIC...

its NOT easier... but I agree with jmcilhinney "there will always be people who will love it and those who hate it"...

---

I dont hate VB.NET nor do I dislike it. Its just not what I prefer.

This is what I was saying about being a better fit for some. I find/found VB6 to fit me better than I did VB.NET. I dont want to sound antagonistic here BUT VB6 was easier for me then VB.NET was. Maybe its not for most but for me it was. Also I had messed around with ASP 3.0 in web development so that may explain the comfort level as well. NET 1.0 was what I tried VB.NET with btw.

VB.NET/2005 probally will not be the next language I learn but rather vc++ or c#. But anything I have needed to do I have done with VB6.

I seem to recall an issue with VB.NET accessing the majority of the windows API is that still the case? I would miss not being able to do that like I can with VB6.

@esposito, I agree with you, I dont think VB6 is dead yet. Either way, I like it and enjoy using it. It gets the job done for me.

Quote:

---

seem to recall an issue with VB.NET accessing the majority of the windows API is that still the case? I would miss not being able to do that like I can with VB6.

---

Feels almost identical to me. Only difference is that you use an int for a pointer rather than a long.

the .NET framework is installed via windows update.. if you don't use windows update, then you shouldn't use windows because sooner or later (if you don't already have one) you will get some sort of virus or someone will expliot a hole that the end user will complain about to MS only to find out it was patched 2 years ago...

also, MS has not had a new OS in 5 years.... that is the longest time they have gone without releasing a new OS since windows 95... with this new OS, (as of reports right now) the .NET framework will ship with the OS.

MS will probably release other various products that will include .NET framework code, and therefore the number of windows users running with the framework is going to skyrocket. Not to mention that talking about a 23MB file is not really the argument it used to be.. seeing as how millions of people everyday download poor quality camera recorded movies that are a gig+ in size off torrent sites...and more and more people are getting away from dialup

.NET is good for developers because they have given developers TONS of resources all within the framework...

you guys are also only thinking about the retail world... what about closed corporate environments where the .net framework is guaranteed to be on the end user PC? Do you know how much easier that makes deployment? just a simple copy of the files. If your app has a bunch of support DLLs, then can just be copied too, no regsvr, no MDAC... just your project output...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Feels almost identical to me. Only difference is that you use an int for a pointer rather than a long.

---

and that is only because .NET integer IS a VB6 long :wave:

Oh so true klienma :thumb:

I read the post where the guy is saying .net code is 20 lines more then the same thing in vb6 in 5. No way, .net is alot of times just a single line of code or a property instead of the vb6 way of using alot of code, APIs, and workarounds to do the same.

Once you go .NET you will not go back! :D

vb6 - for the hobbyist who doesn't mind learning some form of BASIC

vb.net - for the real programmer - developing in-house programs for a business or selling real products to real customers

Harsh - yes - true - probably...

Who would want to learn a language that isn't support by the company that used to sell it?

Who would want to learn a language that won't grow with the hardware and software changes that are inevitable in the next decade?

[edit] - oops - deleted it and re-posted it...

So to all of you VB 6 lovers out there...

Would you choose VB 6 or VB 1 (or even BASIC for that matter) language? I know you all would choose VB 6 but the VB 1 programmers may give you the same arguments that your giving the .NET programmers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleinma

the .NET framework is installed via windows update.. if you don't use windows update, then you shouldn't use windows because sooner or later (if you don't already have one) you will get some sort of virus or someone will expliot a hole that the end user will complain about to MS only to find out it was patched 2 years ago...

also, MS has not had a new OS in 5 years.... that is the longest time they have gone without releasing a new OS since windows 95... with this new OS, (as of reports right now) the .NET framework will ship with the OS....

---

You don't really have to run auto updates (you better do it but it's not necessary) - you can have anti virus in place.
And lots of small businesses are still using W95/98 and are NOT lanning to upgrade themselves which means .Net isn't suitable for them.

Thats a valid point RB. As each situation in the professional world would dictate the tool to use that best fits the job/requirements.

The framework does run on 98 though. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

vb6 - for the hobbyist who doesn't mind learning some form of BASIC

vb.net - for the real programmer - developing in-house programs for a business or selling real products to real customers...

---

I don't even know HOW to respond to this nonsense ... Sorry Steve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

I don't even know HOW to respond to this nonsense ... Sorry Steve.

---

Then use .NET and you will see the big difference.

LOL Just kidding Roy. ;)

I had .NET for 2 years via the MSDN from the company I was at. It was VS 2002. I installed it, and opened it.. and said what the hell is this.. whats a sender? what are event args? I closed it and blissfully went back to VB6 and wrote my code...

Then I went to a new company, and while still using VB6, I worked on converting an already written program to .NET (not using the upgrade wizard) because I figured it would be easier to learn .NET by already having the logic of the application itself done. I never looked back after that and I pretty much only open VB6 if I really really have to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

I don't even know HOW to respond to this nonsense ... Sorry Steve.

---

Sometimes you have to say something extreme to make a point ;)

The original poster was asking about the two languages.

That's a lot different then the position you are in - having many years of development already in VB6 - you have to support that and protect that investment.

esposito has already made his points about .Net - in that other nightmare of a thread several weeks ago :sick:

But a new programmer - just coming into this...

.Net certainly seems like the choice. We are doing all new development in .Net in our shop. But we still support some very large VB6 applications.

I'm already drooling at the new features in MS SQL 2005 - but I've got customers that won't move from SQL 2000 for quite a while...

Things changes - new products come out - change is good. The CLR is a good investment for MS and protects the developers who use MS products - there is a large future to that.

VB6 was not going to ever grow to this level - that's a sorry fact...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

...The original poster was asking about the two languages....

---

Exactly and you shouldn't have said that... Your words WILL really hurt lots of people. :rolleyes:

I agree with szlamany about hobbyest/developer.

I used to be stuck with VB6, but I changed and wouldnt go back, its painful to work in. Anyways I just cant understand why people are using OLD technology, because thats what it is OLD. Only reason I can see is if you are supporting vb6 apps through work or whatever!

As for the guy who said he went to use vb6 from .Net :huh: thats like saying you started with winxp and went back to 3.1.

I'm not being rude here but if you are a young developer looking for a carreer path or an old developer looking for a change, 99% of the vb jobs out there in a few years will be .Net and not 6. Its simple,

.Net is the future VB6 is the past :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

You don't really have to run auto updates (you better do it but it's not necessary) - you can have anti virus in place.
And lots of small businesses are still using W95/98 and are NOT lanning to upgrade themselves which means .Net isn't suitable for them.

---

Well they should... More and more MAJOR software apps, are cutting off their support for legacy windows systems. Most of adobe's video suite only runs on windows XP+

Others will only run on NT based OS systems, because the windows 9x systems arent stable enough.

besides... .NET runs on 98... if they are using 95? well thats only OS release up from DOS (win 3.1 was NOT an OS) I can't say too much about it... or the people still using it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

I agree with szlamany about hobbyest/developer...

---

I wonder why would major corps invest billions in some hobby? :rolleyes: And why would out there be tens of millions VB6 developers? Would you call them all hobbyests too? :rolleyes:

not to mention that syntax aside, it would still be easier to move from VB.NET to other OO languages... (C, C#, Java)

VB6 used to be called a toy language, and I always defended it, but now I see why people coding in more powerful languages called it that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

I wonder why would major corps invest billions in some hobby? :rolleyes: And why would out there be tens of millions VB6 developers? Would you call them all hobbyests too? :rolleyes:

---

Well I agree with his point in terms of NOW... before .NET VB6 was the only MS RAD tool out there...

I agree with what your saying, my point is new people entering.

Any business which enters the market now to develop vb6 applications IMO is badly thought out. Would you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

Exactly and you shouldn't have said that... Your words WILL really hurt lots of people. :rolleyes:

---

RB - I certainly didn't mean to offend...

Someone in high school - for instance - right now - wanting to choose a language - that would be for hobbyist reasons - right? They could go VB6 or .Net - both are very valid choices.

Someone deciding on a career path - that's a different story - .Net would certainly seem to be the only choice.

People like you (and me to a lesser degree) have an investment in VB6 - from when it was a "production" language supported by MS - those investments cannot be ignored.

btw - I was being sarcastic - born in NYC does that to a person ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleinma

Well they should... More and more MAJOR software apps, are cutting off their support for legacy windows systems. Most of adobe's video suite only runs on windows XP+

Others will only run on NT based OS systems, because the windows 9x systems arent stable enough.

besides... .NET runs on 98... if they are using 95? well thats only OS release up from DOS (win 3.1 was NOT an OS) I can't say too much about it... or the people still using it

---

That's the point - small businesses don't care much about what's being cut off by MS or any other vendor - they are happy as it is and you cannot force anyone into anything. And there was "pre-XP" Adobe as well and pretty expencive too. Small (and even large) company are unlikely to give it up. They decide what's best for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

...btw - I was being sarcastic - born in NYC does that to a person ;)

---

I'm not far away but there is a limit, you know. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkmcgrath

Please dont KILL VB6.

---

This is a quite ridiculous statement that has come from a myriad of VB6 developers. No one is killing VB6. You can still use VB6 as much as you want. VB6 is no more being killed than VB5 was, or VB4, etc. VB6 was merely updated to VB.NET 2002, which was updated to VB.NET 2003, which has now been updated to VB 2005. Microsoft will discontinue official support for those older languages down the track too. The fact that the update from VB6 to VB.NET 2002 was very, very big is immaterial. You may be able to still drive your 53 Corvette, but does that mean that they have to keep manufacturing them and producing spare parts indefinitely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

I wonder why would major corps invest billions in some hobby? :rolleyes: And why would out there be tens of millions VB6 developers? Would you call them all hobbyests too? :rolleyes:

---

That's because VB6 was THE thing for some time. Now it isn't. What would you call someone who drives around in a vintage car? They're doing it because they have a passion for old cars, not because it is the most practical form of transport. VB6 is three generations of the language old now. When VB6 was current, what would you have advised a new developer who was wondering whether to learn VB3 or VB6?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

That's because VB6 was THE thing for some time. Now it isn't. ...

---

Please... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

...What would you call someone who drives around in a vintage car?

---

That’s actually fun and prestigious too. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

...VB6 is three generations of the language old now....

---

There isn't any "new generation" - there is C# (or java if you will). ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

... what would you have advised a new developer who was wondering whether to learn VB3 or VB6?

---

VB4 32bit... ;)

I've heard it said that Microsoft is ignoring the VB6 community and that they are forcing VB6 developers to upgrade to VB.NET. My take is that as far as Microsoft is concerned there is no such thing as "the VB6 community". There is only "the VB community". VB.NET 2002 is VB7, officially. Sure there are monumental changes from VB6, but that just means it's a big upgrade. Many have suggested that a "new" version of VB6 should be included with Visual Studio along side VB.NET. As if! I've been corrected previously and told that VB6 is object-oriented. What would have been thought if users of older VB versions had asked for a "new" non-OO version to be released alongside the OO version? They'd have been laughed at is what. Let's not forget that Microsoft could have done what many think would have been the best idea and abandoned VB altogether and just moved forward with C# alone. You want a new version of VB, you got it. It's called VB.NET. Don't like it? Don't use it. The simple fact is though that VB6 IS old technology. To say otherwise is simply not being objective. VB6 was released a long time ago in IT terms. It is no longer, or soon to be no longer, supported by its creator. One of its reported "advantages" is that it works better on OLD operating systems. Like VB6 if you want to. Nothing wrong with that. Use it if you want to. Nothing wrong with that either. Being realistic, though, the opportunities for those with VB6 knowledge are bound to be reduced in the future. No one in their right mind is going to choose VB6 as the tool of choice for a new business or venture unless they are already tied to it in some way. There are still many businesses using it, sure. This is just opinion but I'd be willing to bet that if those businesses were shown what can be done in each environment, then given the chance to upgrade to VB.NET without any expenditure of time, effort or money, a large number of those businesses would make the switch. There will continue to be opportunities for those with VB6 knowledge for some time. Who knows, maybe you'll be the equivalent of COBOL programmers around Y2K. I still didn't want to learn COBOL though.

Indeed, i just finished a vb6->vb.net project upgrade for a client.. of course major changes went along with it too. But it amazed me how all the little things that just come with the .NET form controls really impressed them, to them made it all seem more professional, and much closer to Microsoft software, and don't have any dillusions about it, people are used to using the latest Microsoft software. I don't know what small companies you have been hanging around, didn't they have the finance? because i dont see any business without XP or the latest Word, if they didnt have these things they'd have difficulty when they recieve files from other businesses.

People who do not upgrade are not consumers, thus are not worth dealing with in business, this is true for Microsoft not supporting vb6, as it is with yourself who shouldn't be supporting windows 95, if they wouldnt even upgrade to XP after al lthis time, what makes you think theyll pay for the new version of your software?

If you do not embrace change, you shouldn't be in the I.T industry

@jmcilhinney:
I'm not sure what you're preaching about - me not willing to learn new stuff or how great is .Net... :confused: Just on short note: I do know VB.Net as well as C# and dozen other languages at a very decent level. I do not like VB.Net as I do VB6 and that's the point I'm making - VB.Net is not fun language regardless of hom much it cheers you up. Is vb6 getting old? Perhaps, but it's still is very powerfull and more importantly fun language.

@Phill64:
your post (especially last sentence) sounds like you've just graduated from school. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

@jmcilhinney:
I'm not sure what you're preaching about - me not willing to learn new stuff or how great is .Net... :confused:

---

I'm not preaching about either. I'm saying that VB6 is old, period. The original question was in part "What's the difference". One of the differences is that VB6 is old. Do you deny that Win98 is old technology? I could not take anyone seriously who said it wasn't. To be honest I don't know the vintage of VB6 but the IT world has changed considerably since its release. It stands to reason that a more recent version of VB would be more in line with the current state of the industry. This is by no means a given, but the fact that Microsoft created both languages for use on their own current OS suggests that it is a pretty safe bet. I'm afraid that whenever you are unwilling to admit the short-comings of something, your evaluation of its good points become less believable. You say that VB6 is still very powerful and fun. I for one don't dispute the power part, but I think that it is safe to say that, overall, VB.NET is more powerful. As for the fun part, I for one did not find it so, whereas I do enjoy coding in VB.NET. There are those who a gree with you, those who agree with me, those who agree with both and those who agree with neither. How "fun" a language is is purely subjective though. Wossname is revelling in coding assembly. Should we all head that way for our "fun"? The simple fact is that if you want to write VB code for current and future Microsoft OSes then the future is .NET, even if the present may be split between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhinoBull

I do know VB.Net as well as C# and dozen other languages at a very decent level. I do not like VB.Net as I do VB6 and that's the point I'm making - VB.Net is not fun language

---

Doesn't this just further support my, and others argument that vb6 is only good from a hobby point of view.

I like VB.NET because it has "NET" in its name... ooooh... coooooool.... and fancy....

*thought this thread should take a lighter side... :) *

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gigemboy

I like VB.NET because it has "NET" in its name... ooooh... coooooool.... and fancy....

*thought this thread should take a lighter side... :) *

---

Won't be moving to VB 2005 then, eh? ;) This raises yet another interesting point. If Microsoft had simply named the labuage VB7 would there have been the same uproar? The ".NET" is just an affectation in acknowledgement of its dependence on the .NET Framework. If the name VB7 had been used instead, would there have been people demanding a VB6B or would more just have accepted that this was the new version of VB and they'd have to like it or lump it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

Won't be moving to VB 2005 then, eh? ;)

---

Not until they release the full version for free ( I have my fingers crossed :D ) or whenever I can get my hands on a full version for a much reduced price.... (im thinking its the second option) grrrrrrrrrrrr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gigemboy

Not until they release the full version for free ( I have my fingers crossed :D ) or whenever I can get my hands on a full version for a much reduced price.... (im thinking its the second option) grrrrrrrrrrrr

---

[suspiciously]And how would you get a copy at a much reduced price? If I'm not mistaken VS.NET 2003 is still full price if you buy it legitimately.[/suspiciously] ;)

What you can do is try to work hard and share your technical expertise for this current year. Maybe if your lucky you can get nominated for a MVP award. MS gives you VSTS 2005 free in a MSDN subscritpion.

Share your knowledge: $0.
Help the public community: $0.

MSDN subscription for 1 year: $10,900+ :D

I cant wait to get my copies of VSTS 2005.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

What you can do is try to work hard and share your technical expertise for this current year. Maybe if your lucky you can get nominated for a MVP award. MS gives you VSTS 2005 free in a MSDN subscritpion.

Share your knowledge: $0.
Help the public community: $0.

MSDN subscription for 1 year: $10,900+ :D

I cant wait to get my copies of VSTS 2005.

---

Oh, that's how. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

[suspiciously]And how would you get a copy at a much reduced price? If I'm not mistaken VS.NET 2003 is still full price if you buy it legitimately.[/suspiciously] ;)

---

Thats what Im saying... if ... by any forces that may intervene... that one full version suddenly is available... then... ummm... ima shush now... *getting nervous*

John, but it does require some technical skills. ;) Jk.

You probably came on to the scene in full force a little too late for 2005 but if I know you, I wouldnt doubt that Santa Clause would be contacting you. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phill64

Doesn't this just further support my, and others argument that vb6 is only good from a hobby point of view.

---

Very much the opposite! If you didn't understand that then I'm afraid we have nothing more to discuss - you must know product(s) (in and out if you will) to gudge it and you don't sound like you do so any further arguments would be pointless.

Best regards.

We don't have anything more to discuss, but not for this reason, because your opinion is not going to change under any circumstances, and this matter has been debated so many times before, this thread is absolutely meaningless for both sides

I don't see what the fuss is all about, personally. I had one VB6 class in college, and one VB.NET after that in college, and I (being a beginner) did not see much change in the syntax. .NET was very similar to VB6 syntax-wise (notice I am saying from a Beginner's point of view). But I found that VB.NET code was more structured and easily readable, and very easy to understand, and most of all, a little fun to code! I did not like to code a few years ago... at all. I had a C++ class way before that at a different college and hated it... with a passion. Ugly syntax, hard to read and understand. Couldn't understand why people would enjoy doing something like that. Not till VB.NET came around did I start to like programming... and started to get hooked after that....

If a VB6 user would sit down and take the time to actually work with the language a little and accept the little changes... I think they will find that .NET is not that different...

Just thought I would add this beginner's point of view ......

Ok lets sum this up,

If your a begginer who is looking to progress in computing carrer, best option is .net

If you are a begginer who is looking to have some fun with coding, look at both of the langauges.

If you are a current developer, time to learn .Net . VB6 will be gone in a few years.

Pino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

Ok lets sum this up,

If your a begginer who is looking to progress in computing carrer, best option is .net

If you are a begginer who is looking to have some fun with coding, look at both of the langauges.

If you are a current developer, time to learn .Net . VB6 will be gone in a few years.

Pino

---

You have probably come to your conclusions quite hastily. I would put it this way:

If you are a beginner who is looking to progress in computing career, look at a COM based language that does not make you depend on the framework. Use it until MS breaks compatibility with COM.

If you are a beginner who is looking to have some fun with coding, learn whatever you want.

If you are a current developer, time to learn REALbasic: it allows you to produce cross-platform software that really works. You will need it when people abandon Windows and switch to Linux after MS has decided to base its OS on .NET.

Since MS didn't care about VB6 developers, it is legitimate to believe that they will not give a dime for the users of their OS who don't want to throw away tons of API based applications. Anyway, I am sure that their selfishness will eventually backfire and put an end to their story.

Like some of you, After 5 years of VB6 programming, I switched to do my current project in VB.net (VS 2003). Even though sometimes you have to write a few more lines of code in order to get what you want out of VB.NET, to me it makes more sense and was more consistent.

I originally got into .NET using ASP.NET and I can't tell you how much easier it was to develop over using traditional ASP and it's spaghetti(sp??) code. ASP.NET was my gateway drug and now i'm addicted to .Net. I'm currently learning .Net Remoting (the new version of DCOM) and i'm very excited about the posiblities it offers. The book i bought was the C# version of Advanced .NET Remoting by Ingo Rammer (Great book!). This was my first exposure to C# and it took a little bit of learning the syntax but once I got it, it was easy to translate it to VB.NET. Funny thing is I actually liked the C# code better, but since my current project was well into development, and it was in VB.NET, I didn't want to change midstream :)

My next thing I will learn is Web Services.

My company has the MSDN Universal subscription and I just downloaded VS2005 (2 gigs, who ever was complaining about the 24 meg framework should try and down load that beast!!). I'm even more excited to use that in conjunction with SQL Server 2005. I love new technology and nothing is better then learning it and opening yourself up to a whole new world of posibilities.

One thing I greatly miss from VB6 is the ability to edit your code while you Step thru it in the IDE. I used that so much in VB6 that 6 months into my .NET developement I still find myself trying to modify my code while I'm stepping thru. Being an ASP developer for in my past life (and never being able to get the debugger mode working in it) I can manage without in process modifications.

In closing, I use VB6 (4 year+, Large scale project that is constently being updated) and VB.NET (new project in development) both on a daily basis and I wish I could recode the VB6 project into .NET (who has that kind of time???).

Quote:

---

One thing I greatly miss from VB6 is the ability to edit your code while you Step thru it in the IDE.

---

Can do with VS2005. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

Ok lets sum this up,

If your a begginer who is looking to progress in computing carrer, best option is .net

If you are a begginer who is looking to have some fun with coding, look at both of the langauges.

If you are a current developer, time to learn .Net . VB6 will be gone in a few years.

Pino

---

If you're a beginner who is looking to progress in a computing carreer, best option is C++. If you learn that language, then moving to VB6, .NET, C#, or whatever is so easy that there will barely be a learning curve.


If you are a beginner who is looking to have some fun with coding, look at VB6, VB.NET, C#, C, or C++, but be aware that the latter two will be harder to get up and running with.

If you are a current developer, time to learn .NET. Some people won't like it, but some people won't like anything. MS will abandon VB6, just as MS will abandon .NET. If you don't want to be using abandoned technology, learn an open standard language like C/C++. If you want a RAD tool, learn the one that is current, because everything else will eventually be legacy.

All the talk about runtimes is becoming silly. Java, VB.NET, C#, VB6, earlier VB's, and many other languages require a runtime of some sort be in place prior to use. None of these will create a single file .exe that can be put on a new computer and it will run. In fact, this could be expanded to include almost every app written in C/C++, as well.

For all VB6 apps, the runtime can be included in the installation package. This is true for .NET, as well. The size is bigger. So what! Code bloat is something that pundits have moaned about for decades now, but it makes less and less difference all the time. When you needed to transfer on 1.44 MB floppies, a big runtime was an issue. Now, most .NET apps, even ones that automatically detect/install the runtime and MDAC, are not very big by todays standards.

There are people who will need to target older, legacy systems that will have difficulty with files the size of the runtime, but those are few and far between. Furthermore, people with those types of systems have to expect to see limitations. I was tempted to pick up an old 286 that I saw advertised for $25. I had no expectation that it would be able to run .NET apps, but it couldn't have run VB6, either. On the other hand, it could have run a copy of Joust that I might still have kicking around.

The computers that are troubled by the runtime are a niche market, if you want to focus on them, go ahead, I still know some cobol systems, but understand what you are targeting, and what the tradeoffs will be.

Quote:

---

If you're a beginner who is looking to progress in a computing carreer, best option is C++. If you learn that language, then moving to VB6, .NET, C#, or whatever is so easy that there will barely be a learning curve.

---

But thats off topic, Vb.Net or Vb6 ;)

Plus starting with Vb.net and then moving to c++ is IMO a better option c++ is scary for beginners!

I would like to emphasize a concept I have already expressed: the fact that, after so many years since .NET appeared, most VB programmers have not switched to .NET tells a long story, the moral of which is, .NET may not be the future.

Too many programmers don't like the framework because it depends on byte-code. As I said, if VB6 users liked byte-code programming languages, they would use Java, that is even free and more widespread than .NET.

I think the reason why MS has decided to give away the Express editions of their new programming tools is because they have realized that most classic VB users are not willing to switch to .NET.

Again and once forever, let me say that .NET may be a disastrous policy MS has undertaken and, unless they propose a new COM based development tool, they are going to lose the monopoly of programming languages.

Exactly. Plus you .NET lovers are also saying that we won't change to .NET cause we don't like change. Why should we change to something that's got issues? Those issues are the very reasons why I won't change to it, unless I have to.

Quote:

---

most VB programmers have not switched to .NET tells a long story, the moral of which is, .NET may not be the future.

---

but it IS the future of VB.